The NYT Explains Why the Minimum Wage Should Be $0.00

“Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market."

In in an editorial entitled “The Right Minimum Wage: 0.00, a writer at the New York Times makes the best case ever for why there should not be one. While history has shown that a manipulated minimum wage always does more damage than good, it is amazing to see such a headline from the NYT. Now the truth is that the article was written Jan. 14, 1987, but the truth is the truth!

The article states:

“Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market.”

We know this. We have seen it in Seattle, the centerpiece experiment for a $15 minimum wage. Who has it hurt the most? Those at entry level job qualifications. Both by the loss of those positions, and as well, new requirements by businesses who are forced to pay a higher rate.

The article goes on to say:

“The argument isn’t convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs. The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable – and fundamentally flawed. It’s time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.”

Are we sure this was the NYT? But it is truth!

“No wonder. But still a mistake,” the Times explains. “There’s a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed.”

Where are all those economists today? There are still some around.

Mark J. Perry, scholar at AEI and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus states:

The minimum wage supporters see almost endless benefits despite the economic destruction that characterizes minimum wage laws. They see miracles of multiplying prosperity, increased income, and more jobs coming from minimum wage hikes, a form of economic magic enacted in state capitals, by city councils, and the federal government. But once we trace the long-term effects of such public policy on all groups in the economy, and analyze both what is seen and what is unseen, we should easily understand that the minimum wage cannot, and will not, have overall positive effects.

Let’s make this easy.

The average working person’s career spans 5-6 decades.

You turn 16, and you can now get a job. (Some at this point have worked already, for peanuts! Good for them! It wasn’t about the money! It was about character building and experience! Many people look back at those years with the greatest of fondness!)

You start at the bottom of the ladder. You have no work exp[experience and few skills. You get paid at that level. These positions are important. They were not designed to make enough money to buy a Ferrari, they were designed as a step on the ladder.

As you continue to get skills and experience, as well as a reputation for dependability and reliability, you move up. You either get another job, or often a promotion.

What makes this country great, and the free market great, is that today we have CEO’s of major corporations who began as janitors.

Hard work is always the best road. Yes, sometimes people have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet! So….What?

That is part of life! You do that! Then years later, when things are good, you look back on those years with fondness!

The left always wants to remove life’s hurdles! You cannot do that! You take away people’s opportunity to grow!

Let the market decide the pay scale, and let the people climb the ladder. Thanks to the NYT for pointing out this truth, even if it was back in the day when I was in High School…oh boy!